Ethnosemiotics is a term, coined by the Russian linguist Yury Stepanov. The term tends to encompass numerous science fields. From anthropology and ethnography through social psychology and Engineering psychology (ergonomics). Therefore, ethnosemiotics researches highly developed societies.
Ethnosemiotics has an interest in philosophy and literature as well. According to Yury Stepanov, all of these fields of interest could be named ethnosemiotics.
Yet, all these fields currently have separate names and the semiotics ideas in philosophy are part of the history of general semiotics. The semiotics of literature is part of the semiotics of text, part of which is Claude Lévi-Strauss‘ mythological discourse. Edward T. Hall on his part is the founder of the field of Proxemics. What is more, other authors have as well founded and developed other semiotics fields.
In such a case, is it fair to even speak about ethnosemiotics? And if so, what should the term stand for?
On the one hand, we could easily claim that all of the applied semiotic fields do have ethnocultural direction. The semiotic systems that have a universal character, are limited in number.
Therefore, most semiotic systems function within the borders of a certain culture. Some, have an even narrower scope and function only within a certain nation. Such semiotic systems are the natural languages. Meaning, mostly Italians speak Italian, Spaniards – Spanish, Latvians – Latvian, etc. Thus, the semiotic system of the specific language operates (mostly) within the borders of the nation.
There are other semiotic systems that function within the borders of ethnicities that constitute a nation. For example the semiotic systems of traditional clothing. Italians have their traditional clothing, and so do Germans, the French, and the representatives of most other nations.
Some semiotic systems, on the other hand, function only within the boundaries of a certain social group. The palace etiquette is a good example of that. So is the legislative language that judges and lawyers use.
In that sense, ethnosemiotics is a part of sociosemiotics, as the latter focuses on the cultural determination of human behavior.
Until 1994 the term Ethnosemiotics was used only within the boundaries of Eastern Europe. In that year, Thomas Albert Sebeok includes it within the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics.
